When Nixon went to China people said it took Nixon to go to China, implying only someone obviously anti-communist could go there without being labeled a communist.
Likewise, no man could say "Women in 21st century American cities are the privileged of the privileged," as the woman who wrote that article wrote, without being lambasted.
I don't know if I would say it so strongly, but the once-standard view that men succeed at women's expense seems to be crumbling as people recognize the glass cellar as powerful as the glass ceiling; that as much as men occupy the top echelons of business and politics, so do they occupy the bottom of homelessness; that as they dominate lucrative fields like engineering, so do they dominate fields that dominate workplace deaths like mining, construction, trash disposal, long-haul trucking, soldiers, etc; that as much as women have trouble entering STEM fields, so do men have trouble entering teaching, nursing, etc. Women are successful in the West -- more of them get college degrees, they live longer, no law forces them to register for the military (in the U.S. at least), the law doesn't imprison them nearly as much, the government has many programs to help them, and so on.
It seems that decades ago both men and women had to follow gender roles. Women's roles have since opened up, giving them more options. Men's roles have opened somewhat, but less so. I know a lot of fathers and I've never met one who didn't want to spend more time with his children, but they tend to have fewer options to.
Many of the initiatives the author of the article questioned could probably help more if they defined need around issues other than sex.
(EDIT: I hope people posting realize that HN weighting sinks stories with more posts than upvotes. If you want a discussion with many people participating, keep the number of posts below the number of upvotes the story gets. Otherwise it drops off the front page.)
Most studies show that single homeless adults are more likely to be male than female. In 2007, a survey by the U.S. Conference of Mayors found that of the population surveyed 35% of the homeless people who are members of households with children are male while 65% of these people are females. However, 67.5% of the single homeless population is male, and it is this single population that makes up 76% of the homeless populations surveyed (U.S. Conference of Mayors, 2007).
In 2003, children under the age of 18 accounted for 39% of the homeless population; 42% of these children were under the age of five (National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, 2004). This same study found that unaccompanied minors comprised 5% of the urban homeless population. However, in other cities and especially in rural areas, the numbers of children experiencing homelessness are much higher.
----
minors, 42% of all homeless
children under 5, .39 * 42% = 16.38%
So male, 60%; female, 40%; children under 5, 16%.
If I make the assumption that the children under 5 percentage is evenly split between male and female, and an additional assumption that homeless children are members of families, it means that of the 8.4% of males homeless in families, all but a remnant are under the care of a homeless woman.
That means that the portion of the homeless that are women and their children is around half.
I remember previously stumbling upon http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/c... - while I don't know to what extent the situation is similar in the US and haven't cross-checked the statistics, the data the speaker quotes seems to suggest that there is a significant disparity even if you control for that. (The relevant figures are all on the first two pages or so; beyond that, there isn't much to see apart from polemical banter)
That's not a success of women, that's just a sexist (and common) law.
Yet when was the last time you saw feminist and women's organizations actively campaigning for more females to register in the military and fight in the battlefield? Practically never, from my experience. Last time I saw it mentioned was an activist who was insisting on diluting military training to make it more accessible to women, which... is not a solution, I hope you realize that.
But for the most part, it's never discussed. After all, war is hell. If women are not encouraged to go out and die, that's a big advantage, even if a technically sexist one. It's an example of sexism that is actually beneficial to the group that experiences it. Why would they want to fix it?
Because they don't commit nearly as much crime? I don't understand this at all.
>Yet when was the last time you saw feminist and women's organizations actively campaigning for more females to register in the military and fight in the battlefield?
Who cares what some strawman feminist thinks, especially since the strawman feminist didn't even support the ERA. I'm saying that characterizing this as a success of women is incoherent.
"Yet when was the last time you saw feminist and women's organizations actively campaigning for more females to register in the military and fight in the battlefield?"
This is the stupidest argument. Why is this same argument brought up every single time?
Feminists would say that selective service IS sexist, and that we should abolish it. In fact several women's organizations have helped challenge the legality of it to the supreme court (The American Civil Liberties Union Women’s Rights Project for one).
Remember in 1980 when Jimmy Carter urged congress against enacting male only registration and the 97% male congress enacted it anyway? How is this the fault of women?
It seems doubtful that the answer to social inequalities is to make special privileges for each group to match the special privileges already enjoyed by others, as opposed to working more towards an ideal of equal treatment for everyone. I kind of cringe every time I see some study or argument saying something to the effect of, "Women are, in fact, better suited for this type of work than men are." The healthy thing to do would be to judge each individual on their own merits, regardless of what group they belong to. Women-only type things seem a bit regressive in that respect, in that they fight fire with more fire rather than fixing the underlying issue of automatic special treatment based on which group you belong to. Not that I'm actively against such programs, anymore than I would be against a bachelor's party or a girls-night-out. People have the right to organize and I know such programs were instrumental in helping to decrease the amount of sexism in society. The point is just that the more you isolate people into special groups and make them stand out, the more you encourage inequality in society as a whole. So yes I think this was a good post.
> It seems doubtful that the answer to social inequalities is to make special privileges for each group to match the special privileges already enjoyed by others, as opposed to working more towards an ideal of equal treatment for everyone.
If two people are running in a race, and one of them has been running the past 4 miles with a 50-pound weight on their back, taking the weight off isn't going to make the race fair. You've either got to give them some kind of help or put a weight on the other person's back.
The mentality of the world as a competition between different groups of people, where either men win and women lose, or men lose and women win, doesn't seem particularly helpful either. A race implies winners and losers, so I think this is a bad analogy. An idea of "let's treat men worse for a while as revenge for years of male-dominated history" isn't very sophisticated, no particular offense intended. Also, giving special privileges to all the known groups will just disenfranchise the people not associated with any particular groups (in this case, one might consider trans people). Human equality (or even including non-human-persons equality) would seem a better ideal than just male-female equality.
If we're actually intelligent creatures, let's try and fix the underlying problems instead of just pushing them around for someone else to suffer from.
Most people have a weight that's not obvious to others. One person runs with their 50 pound sexist society weight. Another runs with their 50 pound tormented in school and has no one to turn to for help in moving past it weight. Another has a 50 pound echoes of institutional racism weight. I could go on, but I think you get the point.
Everyone could do with programs to help unload their weights. No one needs or deserves more weight.
No you don't, doing so only breeds more animosity. There's a reason why men get touchy over female hires and promotions that are framed in the context of diversity and women's rights. Hiring or promoting someone primarily for being female, especially if they aren't the best candidate, is stupid.
Whoever downvoted this, I suggest they look into the criticism of "colorblindness" in regards to racism, and consider if an analogy can be made here as well.
There's no connection between the headline and the article, which not only doesn't examine the results of any women-only initiatives, but only mentions a single example (that it seems to approve of.)
>But there’s something wrong when we treat half the population like a minority or special interest group.
There's also something wrong when we treat half the population like baby breeding kitchen help, too. We remediate the damage done by open sexism through targeted help. When it comes to management, ownership, and government, women are not only a minority, they are an extreme minority.
>Women don’t need all the help we can get because we’re women.
No, that's why a sexist would help women. Women need all the help that they can get because men run everything and often don't really think of women as completely human. Women need help because they are constantly under attack. Women sometimes need help because they are generally smaller and lack upper body strength. If you can get by without it, feel free.
There's a temptation as a member of a discriminated against group who has found some success amongst the dominant group to use their own success and the success of their friends to argue that merit will always rise to the top. Don't do this, because you will be paraded as evidence that discrimination is over, and it's alright to withdraw from the ghettos and set them on fire.
If a few millionaires are enough to say that discrimination doesn't matter anymore, racism against blacks must have ended before slavery.
"Women need all the help that they can get because men run everything and often don't really think of women as completely human. Women need help because they are constantly under attack."
Not sure if this is troll bait, but... are you serious? Do you have anything at all to back this up?
>Women earn the majority of bachelors, masters and doctorates
Wonderful. Its good that the efforts that were made to help women in education have borne so much fruit that we're starting (or were starting in the 90s) to worry about boys falling behind. That's a sign that the supports might eventually be alright to take away.
>Women live longer than men:
Since the stone age. Is this a discussion of jealousy, or sexism?
>Women choose safer jobs than men (which may explain some income gap differences):
>And a study that suggests that men and women are paid the same:
For the same jobs. Probably. I believe these studies and hate the X cents on a dollar deceptive statistic. The fact is, women don't have the same jobs as men, they have lower level ones due to prejudice and childbearing. I'd also argue that there are many high-skill jobs that are traditionally dominated by women, and due to that domination are less respected and paid less. Even within female-dominated professions, management still somehow ends up dominated by men due to the "glass elevator."
It also appears the later differences in pay may have more to do with life choices. Such as raising a family, which believe it or not some women consider a higher priority than their careers. Blasphemy, I know, clearly a byproduct of the patriarchy.
1. I can just as easily claim that most of those companies are owned by old people. Does this mean we, as a society, discriminate against young people? I'm not arguing that sexism used to be a big issue back when most of the companies you're using as an example were created. I'm saying that nowadays, it is an issue that I doubt is as legitimate as women groups and similar make it out to be.
2. Same reasoning as above. This used to be true, and is not anymore. Yes, not giving women the right to vote was bad. But now, they have the right to vote. The problem was solved.
>1. I can just as easily claim that most of those companies are owned by old people.
Yes, you can. I would argue that being older means that you have had the time to accumulate skills, experience, and connections. What does being a man give you? Upper body strength?
>2. Same reasoning as above.
I missed that reasoning. Most companies are owned by old people (something that I'm not even sure is true), therefore there's no sexism?
The point I was trying to make is that in the times many of those companies were created, sexism WAS a legitimate issue, which means that most of these companies are run by men. Nowadays, it is not nearly as big an issue as it is made out to be, but that does not magically infuse the old companies with 50% women. This is why using this statistic is inherently flawed, as the companies were simply created in a different time (if you don't believe me, check http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/. Very few of those companies are what you would call nouveau riche).
Another gross generalization, and your support for this is that a long time ago women couldn't vote, therefore often men don't think of women as human? By that twisted logic the statement Germany wants to invade France would still be true.
3. Women are under attack by men.
Laughably histrionic. Is that like the war on Christmas?
Sorry, it won't let me reply any deeper. I'm glad you agree you are generalizing, even though you don't seem to want to acknowledge you're making gross generalizations. Either way, you do realize generalizing does not make your point valid. If anything, it's generally considered a fallacy and for good reason. And since you haven't refuted any of the facts I've posted, I'm glad that I've been able to help you learn the world isn't nearly as bad as you seem to have been lead to believe. Contrary to what you seem to think, men do not often think of women as less than human, men do not run everything (that's that generalization again), women do make the same money as men, more women get degrees than men, women live longer than men, and your generalization that men, not some men, but men are attacking women is also not true. Clearly all men are not attacking women. There is no war on women.
And do I think women are under attack by women? That's an interesting question, women do seem to be fairly angry and judgmental towards each other, anecdotally speaking. I dunno, that's a good question. Are women attacking women?
And clearly I think your uterus is unmoored. You nailed it in one. Bravo.
Fine, then I won't even accept that it is a generalization. Men actually run everything, and when there's a woman running something, there's ultimately a man running that woman.
>And since you haven't refuted any of the facts I've posted
None of the facts that you posted speak to your point that "the world isn't nearly as bad as you seem to have been lead to believe." You haven't shown me anything that I didn't know, but I enjoy the condescension.
>men do not often think of women as less than human,
saying it again doesn't make it true.
>women do make the same money as men,
No, they don't. Read your own references. Women make the same money in the same jobs as men, early in their careers.
>more women get degrees than men,
True.
>women live longer than men,
Again, what does that have to do with sexism?
>and your generalization that men are attacking women is also not true.
Not a gross generalization, just a generalization. How many women have you had as a boss?
>2. Men often don't think of women as human.
Note the word "often" which means that this is not a generalization, but an uncontroversial observation.
>your support for this is that a long time ago women couldn't vote, therefore often men don't think of women as human?
No, that's just a reminder that this was the mainstream point of view probably within the lifetime of a women you know. I'm not going to make an argument that men often don't think of women as human like themselves. I would if I were asserting this to a Martian, but not anyone who has lived in any modern society.
>Laughably histrionic. Is that like the war on Christmas?
Are you telling me that I think that women are constantly under attack by men because my uterus has become unmoored?
I saw your earlier interventions. Some of your arguments may be sound, but this one actually makes it harder to take you seriously and does a disservice to your cause. You might do better by arguing from a position that is grounded closer to reality (as in 2014 reality).
In 1800, the right to vote was based on wealth and gender (male). Less that 3 adults out of every 100 could vote. Since then, there have been some significant changes to the voting regulations:
1832 Reform Act. Extended the right to vote to certain leaseholders and householders. 5 adults out of every 100 could vote.
1867 Second Reform Act. Further extension of the voting regulations in counties and boroughs. 13 adults out of every 100 could vote, but still based on wealth.
1872 Secret Ballot Act. Introduced voting by secret ballot.
1884 Representation of the People Act. Any male occupying land or property with an annual rateable value of £10 could vote. 24 adults out of every 100 could vote.
1918 Representation of the People Act. All males over the age of 21 were given the vote. Women over 30 got the vote. Women could sit in the House of Commons as MPs. 75 adults out of every 100 could vote.
1928 Representation of the People Act. Uniform voting rights were extended to all men and women over the age of 21. 99 adults out of every 100 could vote.
1969 Representation of the People Act. The voting age was reduced to all men and women over the age of 18.
1985 Representation of the People Act. Voters who, at the time of an election, are abroad, either working or on holiday, may apply for a postal vote.
2000 Representation of the People Act. Introduced changes to electoral registration and extended postal vote provisions.
In terms of the US you will probably find something similar that for the most part it was land owners only who could vote.
You're relying on absolutes and binaries, which has always been a very flawed method of determining any situation, as it ignores all forms of context, nuances and culture. The world isn't as simple as "Men prosper, women suffer." Not at all.
1. A group of men run most things.
2. A group of men often don't think of women as completely human.
I don't believe this. I don't know that there's a group of men that run things. What I'm saying is that as you move higher in the chain of management, you stop seeing women.
>2. A group of men often don't think of women as completely human.
I am not saying this. I am saying that often men don't think of women as fully human like themselves. I am not saying that there is a group of sexists that is causing all of the problems. I believe there are people who are very and openly sexist, and people that are less sexist and less open about it, and the bulk of us that just sometimes suffer from lazy thinking or ideological blinders.
As a guy, I wonder how one can miss this. I certainly had and have my fair share of WTF moments... at some point I even vowed to make a documentary with a hidden cam about the shit some men say about women behind their back, who act completely different to their faces, but I never got around to it. And frankly, I think some women don't really want to know. Stockholm syndrome comes to mind. So my heart jumps for joy about the strong women who do point (and cuss) this stuff out. I wouldn't know how to prove it to anyone else, but maybe they can prove the opposite to me... ?
"the shit some men say about women behind their back"
or the shit men say about other men
or the shit women say about men
or the shit women say about women
... I hardly think it's inherent to men only to vent their frustrations or thoughts about a person, regardless of gender, to another person/group.
And in the case of male speaking about females, I suspect (correct me if I'm wrong) that you're in general referring to sexually-undertoned comments about their appearances? I don't think anything will be able to take that away, since we are, as men, by nature (unless you're homosexual of course, but I'd say it's fair to call that a minority) attracted to women and vice verse...
FWIW I didn't downvote you, and upvoted you to undo that a little. If people disagree, let them use words instead of buttons, geez...
> I hardly think it's inherent to men only to vent their frustrations or thoughts about a person
Or their disrespect, for that matter. What gets me the most is the difference between "public face" and "bro face" I've seen with some, it can be quite the abyss. Sure it's just anecdotal, but my anecdotes are what they are. As a woman on reddit put it: some men are gorillas wearing men suits, and women, once burned, have to make super extra sure to confirm they're not dealing with one of those before making themselves vulnerable.
I know to a degree this is true the other way around, too... like, I once had a SO who basically wanted to marry me, have kids, and sleep around behind my back (this is not speculation either, she basically ended up admitting as much), and I know another woman who stopped taking the pill because she wanted a baby from her SO, who didn't want one. Not cool at all, and that the child turned out great and they both love it, though they're not together anymore, doesn't change that. But still, for every one such story I know, I know 3 about things like cigarette burns or rape. Still anecdotal, sure, but those anecdotes do irk me.
Ask women close to you about this. Hopefully they will tell you I am full of shit. But maybe, just maybe, they will relate some things to you that will make your toenails curl up.
> And in the case of male speaking about females, I suspect (correct me if I'm wrong) that you're in general referring to sexually-undertoned comments about their appearances?
No, I was thinking of more vicious things as that, more like something akin to racist jokes. Though reducing people to their sexuality sucks too, I guess that can go both ways. The power differential however, and the smugness and cruelty it results in for some men, doesn't, not really.
> I don't think anything will be able to take that away, since we are, as men, by nature (unless you're homosexual of course, but I'd say it's fair to call that a minority) attracted to women and vice verse...
I'm not talking about being attracted to, I'm talking about looking down upon, and seeking to control and use. And NEVER would I say "all men do this" -- but enough, too many men, did/do this around me, and the more intelligent a person is, the more subtle and convoluted it gets. Sometimes it's "just" a friendly, but condescending attitude.. not as bad as other things, but still not good enough.
I don't care about arguments with feminists. I'm not a white male or a white woman so those terminologies don't apply to me. It takes time for sexism, racism to work its way out of the system but most of what you said are ridiculous visceral lies.
I don't care about arguments with athesyn. Care to point out a ridiculous visceral lie, or was it enough just to tell feminists just what you think of them?
> I’m going to go out on a limb and say that’s true for everywhere else now, too. Are there sexist and biased individuals out there? Of course. Are there systems still in place from a sexist past that need to be revamped? Sure, and the flood of educated, successful women will eventually take care of that.
I can't speak for the women groups, but I think the last sentence in the above statement has not, to their opinion, borne itself out. Thus, the need for groups that specifically advocate for them.
I'll say this as a member of an "empowered" minority group... I'm Asian, I've grown up in nearly-all-white communities in the Midwest, my family was technically low-income but otherwise, I never felt disenfranchised. And I did follow in the "model minority" path of working hard and doing well for myself, and Asians, overall, perform highly on tests of academic measure and personal wealth in America.
But let's ignore the thing of not all Asian immigrants being on equal footing (that is Chinese/Korean/Japanese is not the same as, say, Cambodian)...Asians, despite their empowerment, get roundly screwed in media portrayal and perception. In news coverage and in popular media. The only reason why I watch WAlking Dead from time to time is because it is so utterly astonishing to me to see a popular lead Asian character who is not at all exotic, not valued for his math skills, and doesn't appear to know martial arts. (there's also BD Wong in Law and Order SVU, but he's not as much in the spotlight as Steven Yeun's character).
A friend of my works in an Asian American advocacy group...we both ponder on how Asians are indeed a privileged group, yet at the same time, because collectively we do so little to be the greasy wheel, there are ways we get stepped on. But because the meritocracy seems to be working for us (as a group), there seems to be little desire to get involved in advocacy.
The goal of women oriented initiatives isn't to tell women they aren't as capable. The author may be perfectly capable and she may be treated on her merit alone, but in aggregate women are not treated like that.
"They reveal considerable gender differences among the self-employed,
particularly those who are also employers. Figure 22.1 shows that across the 27 EU countries only 25% of business owners with employees are women (for definitions, see Annex IV.A1). The low share of women has only marginally grown over the last decade in the EU27, Canada and United States"
Let's not kid ourselves. Women face serious hurdles in entrepreneurship. They have less access to credit when starting new businesses for one. Women who own businesses are on average higher educated than there male counterparts yet they earn significantly lower salaries.
I will end by pointing out that women focused initiatives help everyone, not just women. There is a positive correlation between gender equality and GDP per capita, everyone wins in an equitable society.
Women who own businesses are on average higher educated than there male counterparts yet they earn significantly lower salaries.
I remember reading this I wish I had the link but it showed female business owners tended to take more time off than male counterparts and had a nicer work/life balance over money/growth/profit.
Are you suggesting that consumers are buying/consuming products/services from female run businesses?
Except the report I linked provides data and statistics that show women entrepreneurs earn less than their male counterparts across OECD countries, which is specifically what I was talking about.
Another oft-overlooked problem with women-only spaces is that they tend to put enormous pressure on the litmus, namely, "is so-and-so a woman?" This tends to screw over people like me (trans).
Now, I know that's not front page news -- there are how many of us? -- but if you care about things like wheelchair ramps and braille, you care about how structural decisions affect the ability of minorities to access a space.
In this case, the minority is being kept out by a conceptual barrier rather than (say) a pre-war flight of stairs, but it still really really sucks to be that minority.
Just another consideration. I'm actually undecided if inclusive, well-managed women-only (or _-only, where _ is a minority of your choosing) spaces are the best approach to the (serious) problem, but I know that some people benefit greatly from such spaces. So it's a question for sociology, really, not hand-waving debate (is there a way of preserving the benefits of these spaces while being more inclusive? what are the supposed benefits? How significant? For whom?)
Great post. I have been trying to make this point here on HN this past week or so, only to be downvoted into oblivion. Thank you for putting it so eloquently.
Because they aren't considered to be as desirable of jobs? Same reason women aren't generally complaining that they're not as well represented in coal mining, oil rigs, construction, etc.
With the exception of teaching in your examples, nobody really cares that there exist jobs that tend to attract one gender over another. What matters is if the better jobs only attract one gender.
There was a big push to get more men in nursing a decade ago. Hospitals offered big hiring bonuses and 100% tuition reimbursement after a couple years' employment. There were billboards on the side of the expressway talking about how it wasn't just a woman's job.
I don't know how successful it was, but I would have jumped on it if I wasn't close to finishing a CS degree already.
On a side note, in traditional designation of gender roles in many cultures the women handle the family money, or do the sales (for example the man does the harvest and the women does the sale at the market). Which I think could be leveraged when it's time to break the mold.
Traditional gender roles has been exploited in education in some part of the world for example. They decided to focus on little girls going to school, since they will be the ones caring for the family later in life, they will be the one spreading the knowledge to the kids, so if there is a choice is to be made, it's more efficient to send a girl than a boy to school.
This sort of thing is happening in most western societies, majority of university students are women, but what we are most concerned about is which degrees they are choosing.
You're assuming that given free choice, more women would choose computer science. But there are lots of other higher status degrees to choose, so I wouldn't take that as a given.
Personally, I still think this is the most parsimonious solution to the question. Its only flaw is that it doesn't give anybody any reason to self-flagellate, or at least not much of one.
People keep trying to have this discussion in the context of the 1950s, but we're in 2014, where women are, among other things, the majority of college graduates (and increasing). It is a obvious fact that in the past 20-30 years, every discipline has made a huge push to attract more women, with great success. The real problem today is that computer science/programming needs to attract women in a world of incredibly stiff competition.
Why is enrollment declining? Is it that unreasonable to suspect that the answer is "because computer science is being outcompeted by the dozens upon dozens of other disciplines making women better offers"?
I deliberately phrase this as "computer science" and not "computer scientists" because I'm unconvinced the problem is in the people. "But sometimes, there are misogynists in the computer world"... how is that unique? Every field had that problem. Today, computer scientists have been damn near actively begging for women, to the point that the solicitousness itself is becoming offensive, as the author points out. There gets to be a point where advocacy turns into trying to tell women what to do.
Unless both genders are precisely equally drawn to every single discipline, an idea which I think is itself rather offensively insensitive ("feminism" shouldn't be defined as "women are just funny-looking men" but my goodness is that a popular version if you really look at what people believe), there's going to be unbalanced disciplines.
This goes against some of the doctrines, and so I think people tend to put this argument when I make in the wrong bucket, but personally I think the question of whether we're trying to tell women what to like and how to like it is itself a feminist question. "So we should just stop trying because it's hopeless, huh?" No, I don't think that. Roll the carpet out, with all due honesty and openness, sure... but if nobody chooses to walk on it, that may very well simply be their decision (in aggregate). We have no right to run up to them and tell them they are wrong.
Might I also add that by sp332's own statistic, that the ratio has been falling since 2001, the idea that the field has been getting more misogynistic in the past 12 years is just patently absurd, and that is itself evidence that what's happening here isn't about the people.
Woman that wants to study computer science or like coding will have no trouble to go to study it. However, if a girl is not sure what she wants to do, she will almost certainly NOT pick up computer science, because it is thought about as a boy major.
Conversely, if a boy does not know what he wants to do, he is likely to go for CS, because that is the "usual" decision.
Not every boy who went to study CS was dreaming in code since elementary school. Most of them learned to code in college. However, CS girls I knew usually picked it up because they really wanted to do it.
That's probably not true. The money is pretty good, for one thing :) The ratio used to be higher in the USA, and it's still higher in some other countries. To be specific, it seems like boys are encouraged to go into tech while girls are not, which has a few effects. The first is that girls don't really consider tech at all: it's not that they consider and discard it, they just don't think of it. The other is that more boys are proficient at computer skills and programming by the time students are entering college, so even if girls do take intro courses, they are discouraged because it seems like the boys are so much better at it.
Edit: do I really have to put "on average" every time I use the words "boys" and "girls"?
"it seems like boys are encouraged to go into tech"
Please stop encouraging this lie. I've never been encouraged to go into tech, and I'd venture a guess that most people here weren't either. As a matter of fact, for me it was quite the opposite, because every time I was fiddling with a computer, I was told to "stop playing games" and do something "worthwhile".
The money may be good, but the working conditions are often awful - long hours, continual crunches and emergencies, work-life balance basically a myth... Since women are socialised to care less about income and more about work-life balance than men, and both groups are under pressure from society to fit into those traditional gender roles, the fact the money's good is probably enough to cause much of the gender gap in itself.
Now, there's almost certainly nothing inherent about women and men that means they have to think that way, but no-one seems to really be interested in changing this; even groups pushing for more women in tech think this way.
The software industry is kind of elitist. The pay can be great if you are at the top of your game. Below average programmers, however, do not seem to benefit from good pay or access to work.
Of course women can be just as good as men, but there is an inherit risk of not being good at the job even after putting in the effort (for both genders). Perhaps women are generally less willing to take that risk and opt for careers that are more welcoming to varying skill levels?
This is highly relative and culturally dependent. The older generations (at least the ones that weren't already exposed to earlier computing, AKA the majority) usually have idealized and regressive views of their youth, idolizing the "good ol' days" that never were.
In turn, as they see the massive proliferation of computing, they tend to look at it from a superficial perspective: "Children playing their silly computer games and not getting out, as was back in my day." No matter how much you debunk their arguments, the inertia still sticks and you're often perceived as socially challenged.
So no, boys are not necessarily encouraged to go into tech. Some are, surely. Often for monetary motivations. But a lot are guided by their own passion without outside encouragement, excluding their online peers with likeminded interests.
Posted separately:
"In another report, in 2013, 41% of college seniors that elected majors in Physical Science were women. Yet, only 18% of those who chose computer science or engineering were women. It seems they'd be equally capable in chemistry and physics as in computer science and engineering. But their major choices indicate it is not about ability and something else is going on:
http://www.directemployers.org/2012/08/16/the-college-class-.... "
This indicates that women want to take computer science and engineering to a lesser degree than the other physical sciences. And it appears to be a matter of choice.
Not necessarily, although it does worry me that the ratio is declining. Specifically, computer-related fields make more than average amount of money, so getting women into tech would help reduce income inequality and associated issues in our society. But here my specific point is: tech fields would be better off with more women!
...so getting women into tech would help reduce income inequality...
This is incorrect - assuming these women don't displace men, inequality will go up.
Say a woman (or man) moves from a $50k/year office job to a $120k/year tech job. Income inequality will go up. Gini will go up and the "size of the middle class" (typically defined as % of the population between 50% and 150% of the median) will shrink.
Simple example: consider a world of 10 people with income of 50k. Gini is zero. Now double the income of one of them. Gini has gone up to 0.08, and size of the middle class has gone from 100% to 90%.
So given that you have the stated goal of reducing income inequality, and your proposed policy would actually increase inequality, do you now oppose bringing women into computing?
Computing is a very young field. It's well on its way to infiltrating our everyday lives, but it's incredibly underdeveloped. Leaving women out of the process of creating the world we're going to live in seems like a really bad idea.
What exactly are the mental differences between men and women that lead you to think it'd be a "really bad idea" if women didn't have any role at all in steering the future? (Last time we let a woman try to steer the future, we wound up with COBOL! (Joke alert.))
Is some force actually "leaving out" women in creating the future? Is there some force that's going to lay the smackdown on people like Jeri Ellsworth so that they never go anywhere?
You've shifted the goal posts a bit with the emphasis on having more women in positions of creating the future. Personally, I'd rather humanity had more people willing and capable of creating a better future, period, regardless of the other details of their identity. I think there's a shortage, and I regret that my own contributions will if anything likely only be financial to those doing the hard work. Anyway, why would the tech field, as a whole, be better off with more women, when most people in the tech field, male or female, actually don't actively contribute to steering the future?
The garbage man and the bus driver see little benefit from the latest SV IPO. How about a program to encourage people to move into higher potential roles and keep an eye out for implementors giving unfair benefit to one gender/class/whatever.
I just don't buy this argument. As others said, it is 2014, not 1990. Women now outnumber men in colleges 3 to 2, and this is somehow not an issue of discrimination or inequality, on the contrary, it is now apparently more important than ever that we eradicate the few areas where men still unambiguously dominate the outcomes.
The only thing that has changed is society's view of computer geeks, which has evolved from pathetic neckbeards to entrepreneurial wizards. And big surprise, now all of a sudden feminists are concerned about all the sexism and rampant harassment that's supposedly unique to tech.
Every conference I've been to, I've seen men falling over themselves to placate and humor the few women that do show up. Sexism? The vast majority is of the benevolent kind, the kind the feminists themselves constantly advocate for. The kind that makes men watch what they say when a woman enters the room, for fear of triggering another Adria Richards. And the kind that pisses off any capable woman with self-respect.
Income inequality generally just means that different people make different amounts of money. It's quite obviously true, and has increased quite a lot in the U.S. in recent decades.
You mean to be dismissive of the wage gap or pay gap, or maybe more specifically the gender wage gap, or male-female income disparity.
Wikipedia seems to indicate that there is a healthy body of research on the topic, with researchers reaching different conclusions:
Every study I have ever seen that says there is a wage gap, compares people in different roles and industries which seems stupid. That's like complaining that a teacher doesn't earn as much as a CEO.
Women in the mathematics, and engineering have long been underrepresented in tenured and full professor positions but overrepresented in untenured and junior faculty positions, even after controlling for publication productivity and institutional affiliation... Today, women faculty in science and engineering are still promoted more slowly and receive fewer honors and leadership positions.
77 percent say significant numbers of women and underrepresented minorities are missing from the U.S. STEM workforce today because they were not identified, encouraged or nurtured to pursue STEM studies early on.
"Persistent stereotypes that say STEM isn’t for girls or minorities" is one of the top causes of under-representation in STEM.
I didnt even know who my professors where or would be when I enrolled in university, are you suggesting women dont enroll in IT because there arent female professors?
As a woman, I've been told I was bad at math and science since I was a kid. And the funny thing is, is that I'm not bad at math and science. Quite good, really. Your comment drives down to the pits of social and cultural challenges for the past few decades. Remember, women were only allowed to compete for the same jobs as men a generation ago.
In the US, I'd argue that the declining ratios are due to a larger proportion of foreign students (now a majority). Different cultures have much lower focus on female education.
The reason why this became a topic is only because technology, soft/hardware developer really make a lot of money right now.
I remember reading this in HN:" How to detect female-ism? Don't just focus on the fancy job like CEOs, Founders who made million of dollars, you also need to look at mine workers, bus drivers these dangerous jobs." ask yourself why female-ism not talk about women need to work at those fields too?
Then, if you read "revenge of the nerd" by paul graham, you will understand more.
The main quote that sticks out for me is 'Sure, and the flood of educated, successful women will eventually take care of that.'
The plural of anecdote isnt data, because some people have managed to find success doesnt change the fact that women are leaving this fairly hostile field in droves.
Feminism is not meant to only help women, at least in the last few renditions of it. It's meant to seek justice for all persons. It's a rather complicated political-social phenomenon that has seen many renditions, so I wouldn't try to simplify it further.
Anyways, I doubt women-only-initiatives only help women in the great scheme of things, as that's not how things/communities/humans work. Women-only groups and incubators are wonderful, and of course they would support the world beyond because they exist in the same world.
I just don't understand why this post and discussion is being censored? Any one know why it just went from #3 to off the front page in under 5 minutes?
And just like that this post went from #3 to off the front page in 5 minutes. Is sexism to controversial of a subject to discuss so it's just going to be ignored?
I think people are just sick of the debate where no actual evidence of sexism is being produced. But most probably this was down flagged because it doesn't fit the narrative of social just warriors on HN. The author is saying that women programs are bad.
Aaaaaaaaand... GONE![1]. Took about, hmm, 37mins. Perhaps HN's and/or tech community isn't the open-minded, diversity-welcoming group we all think we are...
Did you read the article? If anything this is getting buried because its goes against what people are saying and its written by a female so it cant be immediately be dismissed. So next best is censorship.
No one will be happy until we have full blown socialism where everyone is assigned a career at birth that maintains a neat ratio for every industry by race/sex.
Likewise, no man could say "Women in 21st century American cities are the privileged of the privileged," as the woman who wrote that article wrote, without being lambasted.
I don't know if I would say it so strongly, but the once-standard view that men succeed at women's expense seems to be crumbling as people recognize the glass cellar as powerful as the glass ceiling; that as much as men occupy the top echelons of business and politics, so do they occupy the bottom of homelessness; that as they dominate lucrative fields like engineering, so do they dominate fields that dominate workplace deaths like mining, construction, trash disposal, long-haul trucking, soldiers, etc; that as much as women have trouble entering STEM fields, so do men have trouble entering teaching, nursing, etc. Women are successful in the West -- more of them get college degrees, they live longer, no law forces them to register for the military (in the U.S. at least), the law doesn't imprison them nearly as much, the government has many programs to help them, and so on.
It seems that decades ago both men and women had to follow gender roles. Women's roles have since opened up, giving them more options. Men's roles have opened somewhat, but less so. I know a lot of fathers and I've never met one who didn't want to spend more time with his children, but they tend to have fewer options to.
Many of the initiatives the author of the article questioned could probably help more if they defined need around issues other than sex.
(EDIT: I hope people posting realize that HN weighting sinks stories with more posts than upvotes. If you want a discussion with many people participating, keep the number of posts below the number of upvotes the story gets. Otherwise it drops off the front page.)